Reply

Anna, I admire both your and Nick's courage in stepping up for this role - inevitably becoming a focal point for the debate for a period of time.

My disappointment with the show was that there is never any acknowledgement from the Climate Change believers that there are still significant uncertainties in the piecing together of the components of climate science, and I suspect this is why more than half of the general public remain unconvinced. As was said earlier, the doubts stem from concerns about "the lady doth protestest too much, methinks"

In the 70's climate scientists boldly claimed that we were about to enter a new ice age. That research didn't appeal to any of the various interest groups and so Climate researchers were treated as studing a secondary, or soft science.

Come the 80's however, and the linking of rising CO2 and possibly rising, not falling temperatures, and many vested interests saw a new avenue to push their ideas of anti globalism, anti development etc etc. Certainly there was new funding for research in areas that supported the various interest groups. None of that is a surprise, nor frankly, a concern.

What is a surprise is that the various parts of climate science have been linked together via models under what appears a massive case of Confirmation Bias. Yes, CO2 is rising and temperatures appear to be rising, so it's a reasonable hypothesis that man's CO2 production is affecting the climate. But lets not start blindly accepting multi part models, each with their own significant components of computable error, nor should anyone who questions this be subject to abuse, or emotive labelling.

Usually scientists are fanatical about measuring errors, and yet the multiplied error factor in combining different parts of the climate models gets little attention. Put it all together and there is a very signifant possibillity this hypothesis on AGW is incorrect. But it's never acknowledged by anyone who claims be following the science. Hence, the suspicion of Confirmation Bias and a concern that the proponents of the science are more religious in their beliefs than they ought to be.

Finally, the Q&A episode that followed gave an answer that put everything else in the shade. Find an economically better alternative to fossil fuels and people will change immediately. Just don't contrive to create that solution because it will be seen as cynical and dishonest.